search

icann / rfc-annotations

Other
8 stars 7 forks source link

Stop reporting when sections cannot be created #31

Closed paulehoffman closed 2 years ago

paulehoffman commented 2 years ago

Currently, make annotations reports things like the following in a few places:

Error: annotations for RFC1123 have 8 INVALID sections ('section-2.1', 'section-6.1.3.6', 'section-3.2.1', 'section-4.1.2.6', 'section-4.1.2.5', 'section-id 1081', 'section-2.5', 'section-5.2.2')!

That is not actionable, and can thus not be emitted.

@mboe

mboe commented 2 years ago

@paulehoffman This is the output due to the changed errata.patch file. Please see https://github.com/icann/rfc-annotations/issues/29. As soon as we decide what to do, this output will probably vanish. IMHO this is a duplicate ticket for the same issue.

mboe commented 2 years ago

ok, after removing the eclipsed versions of the errata (see #29), four annotations are remaining which have to be fixed (eg. by adding a corrected version to the from-icann/icann-errata directory. These are:

  1. RFC1123, erratum 2464: The section 4.1.2.6 does not exist as a html id in the HTMLized file. We should reference to line-1669 instead.
  2. RFC1123, erratum 1081: The section 2.1 does not exist (see above)
  3. RFC1123, erratum 1353: The section 2.1, id 1081 is invalid.
  4. RFC5155, erratum 3479: The section 99 appendix a does not exist.

@reschke can you please add/fix the errata files?

reschke commented 2 years ago

@mboe - we didn't have these updated as they are in the errata state "rejected" - maybe we should just skip those when generating warnings

mboe commented 2 years ago

currently it's only a question of the CSS whether we display these annotations or not. It we display the annotations they can not be positioned properly.

reschke commented 2 years ago

Question for @paulehoffman - do we care whether certain rejected errata display in the right location in case somebody decides to change the default CSS in order to display them?